Author
Topic: BP710: THE PROTOCOLS - He whose name is George Floyd (Read 1229005 times)

Biggest, best exclamation point ever Sal! T'Challa has been stripped of his title, his throne, his family, his people and now his lineage; the respect of his ancestors ironically just after he was given the unique ability to commune with them all! Well done brother!

Biggest, best exclamation point ever Sal! T'Challa has been stripped of his title, his throne, his family, his people and now his lineage; the respect of his ancestors ironically just after he was given the unique ability to commune with them all! Well done brother!

Peace,

Mont

Blessed Brotha Kimoyo,

between you, Ture and my (humble) self, we stay trying to hip some of these cats as to what's really going on behind the philosophical scenes but they choose to fall for the okie doke repeatedly.

Jonathan Maberry stripped Wakanda of it's Vibranium and also helped to set the stage for the X-office to reverse all of Reginald Hudlin's accomplishments via the annulment of T'Challa and Ororo's marriage.

Jonathan Hickman's finalized the hatchet job started by Maberry by portaying T'Challa as a complete and utter failure complicit in the destruction of the very people he was supposed to be protecting.....

And in the end, all of T'Challa's lies and secrecy amounted to a big fat....NOTHING.

But of course, the Hickman apologists like to throw false equivalencies left and right whilst defending the indefensible.

King of the Dead, indeed. :smh:

And now with the news that Ava duvernay has passed on directing the Black Panther live action movie due to "creative differences" it's pretty much obvious that Marvel have no intention of bringing an uncompromising T'Challa or compelling Wakanda to the big screen anytime soon.

I'm sure all the "I'll just be satisfied to see T'Challa in a movie regardless of how watered down he is" so-called fans should start rejoicing now.

Biggest, best exclamation point ever Sal! T'Challa has been stripped of his title, his throne, his family, his people and now his lineage; the respect of his ancestors ironically just after he was given the unique ability to commune with them all! Well done brother!

Peace,

Mont

Blessed Brotha Kimoyo,

between you, Ture and my (humble) self, we stay trying to hip some of these cats as to what's really going on behind the philosophical scenes but they choose to fall for the okie doke repeatedly.

Jonathan Maberry stripped Wakanda of it's Vibranium and also helped to set the stage for the X-office to reverse all of Reginald Hudlin's accomplishments via the annulment of T'Challa and Ororo's marriage.

Jonathan Hickman's finalized the hatchet job started by Maberry by portraying T'Challa as a complete and utter failure complicit in the destruction of the very people he was supposed to be protecting.....

And in the end, all of T'Challa's lies and secrecy amounted to a big fat....NOTHING.

But of course, the Hickman apologists like to throw false equivalencies left and right whilst defending the indefensible.

King of the Dead, indeed. :smh:

And now with the news that Ava duvernay has passed on directing the Black Panther live action movie due to "creative differences" it's pretty much obvious that Marvel have no intention of bringing an uncompromising T'Challa or compelling Wakanda to the big screen anytime soon.

I'm sure all the "I'll just be satisfied to see T'Challa in a movie regardless of how watered down he is" so-called fans should start rejoicing now.

Hey Kid, I agree with the statement that creating the Life Raft is a "huge feat," but Sal is right, contextually, Hickman's T'Challa is a failure. His foremost responsibility as a member of the royal family of Wakanda is to Wakanda.

And I think that's where the divide is. You guys want him to be more King than Hero, I would rather see him lean more hero than king (despite ultimately failing at both by the end of the 616, much like everyone else). And that's part of what Hickman was trying to show, that T'Challa is a different king, not the type that would commit mass genocide without a blink. And that makes him worse in some situations, better in others. Arguably, this situation needed a Shuri more than a T'Challa.

To me, him not destroying the GS world may have been "failure" to Wakanda (though everyone failed 616 Earth, Namor included), but what he's doing now could do more than compensate for that.

Quote

The royal family and Black Panthers were supremely responsible for the safety and security of Wakanda and Wakandans; more so, I would argue, than Doom would be responsible for Latverians. (This is why I feel this story would've made more sense with T'Challa in Doom's role - though not as a self-proclaimed god).

Completely disagree. You really see T'Challa more as a builder of Battleworld and the killer of the Beyonders? Sure, it'd be quite the visual, but that very much is a Doom thing (an outright homage to the Original Secret Wars), and T'Challa is not Doom. Plenty of stories have shown this.

Yes, the role of the Black Panthers is the safety and security of Wakanda and Wakandans, but T'Challa has always looked beyond that. Again, that's what makes him different. The others did not.

And if we're going with the "set up like Great Destroyer" role, I also disagree because Doom got that role from being outright rejected by the Illuminati and figuring it out on his own. BP was the first to find out what happened. Would it make sense for him to not convene with the Illuminati? Possible, but not the story Hickman wanted to tell, mileage may vary.

Quote

In the face of the end of everything, T'Challa, especially with the ability to commune with all previous Black Panthers, should have been focused on saving as much of Wakanda as possible. It is not in character for him to act in any other way.

Again, within this context, that's more Shuri or T'Chaka. Though he tried to defend Wakanda later on, I don't see BP as the type to commit mass murder. For Wakanda or not.

Quote

Strange has confirmed that very little of Wakanda survived and that much was saved by Doom! Hickman's T'Challa/Black Panther is a failure at what it means to be the Black Panther and a member of the royal family of Wakanda. Any remaining Wakandans would rightly see him as a sell out. (Interestingly Marvel intends now to pair him with Blue Marvel?) I don't see how this fundamental fact - his failure as BP - changes regardless of what "cool" thing has Hickman him do next?

My two cents.

Peace,

Mont

None of the Wakandans even exist right now, and if he's the one that brings Wakanda back in full, are they really going to call him a sell out? Never mind being "right" (it's not), would they even remember?

To wrap this up though, Shuri was the head of the Royal Family at that point and the main BP. She did her duty fine, despite BP wrongfully undermining it. BP's role was to follow Bast prophecy. T'Chaka and the others may have seen other wise, but most likely they will be proven wrong.

I don't feel bad still enjoying Hickman's story despite it's flaws and despite how low T'Challa went (though other Illuminati did FAR worse. See Tony Stark, who will most likely have NO effect on how Secret Wars gets resolved, and died fighting Steve Rogers). I just hope the resolution is even better.

But again, mileage may vary. You don't have to like the story, and I won't think any lesser of you if you don't agree with me.

But again, mileage may vary. You don't have to like the story, and I won't think any lesser of you if you don't agree with me.

I don't agree with you Kid and I don't think any less of you either other than my belief that you just don't get it! By "it" I mean what it means to be the Black Panther. You surmise that T'Challa being relieved of the formal mantle of BP absolved him of responsibility for the protection of Wakanda as his primary concern? I don't know if you recall but T'Challa wanted his throne and the mantle of BP back. Bast gave him a choice but indicated that being KOTD would give him the opportunity to save his people from annihilation, insinuating Shuri might die if he chose to be restored to the throne. We see how that worked out.

T'Challa's outside interests were retconned brilliantly when CJP revealed that he joined the Avengers to spy on them. During his stint with the Avengers he became a hero to the world at-large however, his primary concern was Wakanda. This restored him to Stan and Jack's vision, the superhero champion of Wakanda.

I don't actually have a problem with T'Challa not blowing up the GS world. I have a problem with him on his knees, crying like a baby, disgraced in the eyes of his ancestors when all along he had the ability to create an alternate means for Wakandans to escape annihilation. Then of course using that means at Reed's behest to save others without a thought to remaining Wakandans? This is contrary to what Bast's prophecy intoned.

Hero or King? I don't want him to be more King than hero. I don't even draw such a distinction. T'Challa/The Black Panther is both. Wakanda is part of who he is. I can see how he would be a hero to the people in the Life Raft and anyone else he may save from Doom going forward but tell me...who mourns for Wakanda?

I jumped ship around Doomwar and havent looked back ever since. So far Redjack got my money for one of his books. Brandon Thomas of Miranda Mercury got my money. Jamal Igle whom left Supergirl got my money. Very soon a few others folks will be getting my money

Logged

With these choices, I felt that the American black man only needed to choose which one to get eaten by; the liberal fox or the conservative wolf because both of them will eat him.

But again, mileage may vary. You don't have to like the story, and I won't think any lesser of you if you don't agree with me.

I don't agree with you Kid and I don't think any less of you either other than my belief that you just don't get it! By "it" I mean what it means to be the Black Panther. You surmise that T'Challa being relieved of the formal mantle of BP absolved him of responsibility for the protection of Wakanda as his primary concern? I don't know if you recall but T'Challa wanted his throne and the mantle of BP back. Bast gave him a choice but indicated that being KOTD would give him the opportunity to save his people from annihilation, insinuating Shuri might die if he chose to be restored to the throne. We see how that worked out.

No we haven't. We'll see that by the end of Secret Wars aka the Salvation part. The end of the multiverse, including Wakanda was inevitable. That was explained numerous times. No salvation was to be had there.

T'Challa's primary concern isn't just Wakanda. It's also the world Wakanda's living in. He wouldn't have spied or worked with the Avengers if it wasn't.

Quote

T'Challa's outside interests were retconned brilliantly when CJP revealed that he joined the Avengers to spy on them. During his stint with the Avengers he became a hero to the world at-large however, his primary concern was Wakanda. This restored him to Stan and Jack's vision, the superhero champion of Wakanda.

And yet, he also helped save the world and the US numerous times. So it wasn't just to keep eyes on them. There's plenty of other ways to do that without outright helping out.

Quote

I don't actually have a problem with T'Challa not blowing up the GS world. I have a problem with him on his knees, crying like a baby, disgraced in the eyes of his ancestors when all along he had the ability to create an alternate means for Wakandans to escape annihilation.

They were still trying to win at that point. To figure out what was going on and save the 616, including Wakanda. Saving lives instead of running away.

The person to aim this at isn't T'Challa, but the person who actually knew what the end game was all along: Tony Stark.

As for the crying and such, yeah, that seems to be the thing that sticks out most to everyone. Never mind Tony Stark trying to commit suicide and knowing the game was fixed without telling anyone (Illuminati included), Strange selling his soul and then doing worse, and Reed rejecting the one guy who was key to solving the problem due to a rivalry.

The worst part was of course T'Challa showing vulnerability in what could have been the move that flipped him from hero to villain (like Namor).

Quote

Then of course using that means at Reed's behest to save others without a thought to remaining Wakandans? This is contrary to what Bast's prophecy intoned.

Do you know who was on that list of people they tried to save? You don't know how many Wakandans were in that list, and they only had a certain amount of people to save at that point. Never mind that they were even able to reach the people on their list (because most of them died).

And again, the prophecy isn't over.

Quote

Hero or King? I don't want him to be more King than hero. I don't even draw such a distinction. T'Challa/The Black Panther is both. Wakanda is part of who he is. I can see how he would be a hero to the people in the Life Raft and anyone else he may save from Doom going forward but tell me...who mourns for Wakanda?

Peace,

Mont

He's both, but you're definitely leaning more on the "he's King. Wakanda over all" end. Wakanda is part of who he is. Part, not all.

And if he is the Salvation Bast says (and when Hickman foreshadows something, it usually comes to pass one way or another), then there will be no need to mourn for Wakanda. It'll be back, like the rest of the universe. Which we know for certain due to the All-New All-Different Marvel.

No, leaning toward one or the other diminishes who he is. He was designed to be both King and hero. Both need to be factored rationally into his characterization. Taking one aspect away, either one, culture or compulsion, reduces his uniqueness as whatever remains. His being a King, the power and authority that goes with that has long been an aspect that was hard for some folks to swallow. Being a hero, under other heroes seemed more palatable for the masses.

So I'd seem him restored as King, so he could be both as he was intended to be. It's T'Challa the King that has taken the bulk of the character's abuse. Before you settle for him being "more hero" perhaps you should ask yourself why that is?

No, leaning toward one or the other diminishes who he is. He was designed to be both King and hero. Both need to be factored rationally into his characterization. Taking one aspect away, either one, culture or compulsion, reduces his uniqueness as whatever remains. His being a King, the power and authority that goes with that has long been an aspect that was hard for some folks to swallow. Being a hero, under other heroes seemed more palatable for the masses.

So I'd seem him restored as King, so he could be both as he was intended to be. It's T'Challa the King that has taken the bulk of the character's abuse. Before you settle for him being "more hero" perhaps you should ask yourself why that is?

The reason for the trip, Brother Mont, was to launch the ALL NEW ALL DIFFERENT MARVEL UNIVERSE after taking readers through a heretofore unprecedented ride that justifies such staggering changes for the MU. That was the purpose all along: not to craft an ending, but to launch a ALL NEW ALL DIFFERENT beginning. One in which everything is possible, the best combination and/or iteration of each character for the writer doing the writing is possible. That includes TCHALLA. Which, as I keep saying, means that the RH+CJP+ [ whoever the new writer is for TChalla's solo ] BP is going to be the default BP, as soon as Marvel settles on who the scribe is. We will have the hardest hardcore and most regal secretive manipulative Black BP back and in full effect as a DEFAULT requiremewnt for P. And. He will e enthusiastically embraced by everyone. Moviegoers to comic lovers. Do you think just any ole person gets to stand toe to toe with Captain America in his own movie and damage CA's shield? And do you think that such characterization will fail to follow through to the comic book side of things? Of course you know better than that. I'm juss stressing the obvious to make the point that you already knew the answer to your query.

No, leaning toward one or the other diminishes who he is. He was designed to be both King and hero. Both need to be factored rationally into his characterization. Taking one aspect away, either one, culture or compulsion, reduces his uniqueness as whatever remains. His being a King, the power and authority that goes with that has long been an aspect that was hard for some folks to swallow. Being a hero, under other heroes seemed more palatable for the masses.

So I'd seem him restored as King, so he could be both as he was intended to be. It's T'Challa the King that has taken the bulk of the character's abuse. Before you settle for him being "more hero" perhaps you should ask yourself why that is?

Peace,

Mont

I stiiiilll haven't seen AOUA2 yet, but heads tell me that TChalla was PRINCE of Wakanda in that movie. We might see PRINCE TChalla in the 616, too. With maybe the whole of his Royal Family restored. Or something. Incredible heretorfore impossible stories could be told there. Remember when I told you guys years ago that I have a story outline showing TChalla and TChaka going to war for the throne of Wakanda? Also, TChaka and Ramonda being on deck frees TChalla to adventure more with the caped crowd.

As my posts prove, I'm usually very much against any idea that removes the title of King from TChalla. Remember, I famously was unthrilled with the premise of Liss' otherwise stellar run. However, after sipping Illuminati juice, losing the multiverse...and possibly REMEMBERING all that occurred? Yeah. TChalla may be all ILLUMINATI'D OUT for the time being.

Here's my vote: keep TChalla as Royalty and explore that whole KING OF THE DEAD thing. TChalla might be ale to recall past events when others cant due to his connection to that unique part of him.

How so? Every story he's been in leans at least on one end or the other, with both factoring in. Some stories deal more with his role as King, others are more superheroic adventures. That's not a diminishment; that's the nature of the character, balancing two roles.

Quote

He was designed to be both King and hero. Both need to be factored rationally into his characterization. Taking one aspect away, either one, culture or compulsion, reduces his uniqueness as whatever remains. His being a King, the power and authority that goes with that has long been an aspect that was hard for some folks to swallow. Being a hero, under other heroes seemed more palatable for the masses.

I can deal with both aspects just fine. Thing is, the genre the character is in makes it a given that he leans towards one aspect more than the other. His royalty and culture provides a fresher perspective than most heroes, and that makes him appealing, yes. But in the end, he's a superhero. Has nothing to do with being "under other heroes".

Quote

So I'd seem him restored as King, so he could be both as he was intended to be. It's T'Challa the King that has taken the bulk of the character's abuse. Before you settle for him being "more hero" perhaps you should ask yourself why that is?

Peace,

Mont

I'm fine with him being King or not, but I'm not settling for him being "more hero", I'm stating a reality of the genre he's in and his place in Marvel. If he wasn't a character with his own solo comic and identity, if he was just a team player, supporting cast member, or antagonist, I'm sure his king role would take more priority. That was the case for Shuri.

But that's the double edge sword of getting a solo push by a superhero company.

How so? Every story he's been in leans at least on one end or the other, with both factoring in. Some stories deal more with his role as King, others are more superheroic adventures. That's not a diminishment; that's the nature of the character, balancing two roles.

To my point, what you state above could be fine, an acceptable episodic, artistic discretion, as long as both aspects are appropriately maintained. When one or the other is removed the character is diminished.

He was designed to be both King and hero. Both need to be factored rationally into his characterization. Taking one aspect away, either one, culture or compulsion, reduces his uniqueness as whatever remains. His being a King, the power and authority that goes with that has long been an aspect that was hard for some folks to swallow. Being a hero, under other heroes seemed more palatable for the masses.

I can deal with both aspects just fine. Thing is, the genre the character is in makes it a given that he leans towards one aspect more than the other. His royalty and culture provides a fresher perspective than most heroes, and that makes him appealing, yes. But in the end, he's a superhero. Has nothing to do with being "under other heroes".

"Givens" are but "white flags" flown in the absence of creativity and, in the case of BP, a lack of culturally-based affinity for the material. That same genre introduced this character back in the 1960's and fully vetted him as both King and hero. We've seen what creative, culturally sensitive, helmsman-ship can produce since. I don't believe in giving anyone an excuse to not give me what I'm looking for, what I've been given to expect, in something I'm expected to purchase.

Kimoyo you remain unsurpassed in your ability to unerringly articulate the failings and missteps that have plagued the Black Panther post Hudlin. I read your posts and am left speechless.

Salustrade your prose and visuals continue to to be the most scathing, uncompromising, unadulterated presentations of compromises afforded the Black Panther by writers too ignorant to respect the mythos that so define him.

I'm dividing all the the Wakandan cash I win from Supreme among the three of us so we can head on over to Panther's Cove and spend some quality time with these Dora Milaje I met on a previous trip. Again I share equally.

Quote

I stiiiilll haven't seen AOUA2 yet, but heads tell me that TChalla was PRINCE of Wakanda in that movie. Supreme

I don't recall Tchalla being mentioned in the film. I will have to watch it again to verify that statement. I would advise caution in regards to the cinematic BP. In Avengers: Age of Ultron we have been shown that Wakandans branded Klaw for his transgressions while Ultron casually dismembers (partially) him for just making a reference. We will have to wait and see how bad ass Wakanda and BP will be depicted in the MCU.

I'm dividing all the the Wakandan cash I win from Supreme among the three of us so we can head on over to Panther's Cove and spend some quality time with these Dora Milaje I met on a previous trip. Again I share equally.

Quote

I stiiiilll haven't seen AOUA2 yet, but heads tell me that TChalla was PRINCE of Wakanda in that movie. Supreme

I don't recall Tchalla being mentioned in the film. I will have to watch it again to verify that statement. I would advise caution in regards to the cinematic BP. In Avengers: Age of Ultron we have been shown that Wakandans branded Klaw for his transgressions while Ultron casually dismembers (partially) him for just making a reference. We will have to wait and see how bad ass Wakanda and BP will be depicted in the MCU.